Printable View
I've been looking into these two scopes, for my .270 to shoot 400-500 yards max for now. Can someone shine some light on these two rigs in repeatability of the turrets and glass clarity comparison? Both are very close in price. I plan to shoot varmints, deer and work my way out to longer effective range as my ability allows. Right now this rifle doesn't have a scope on it. So I'm trying to get it back up and running, without breaking the bank or rushing into a bad buy.
I've been pretty happy with my HS-T. I've never owned a Zeiss or used one so I can't compare the two.
I'm debating about an swfa ss 3-15x42 for my next scope. People say the glass is much better.
I'm also looking @ the same vortex scope/power, and always looking for pros/cons of it.
I doubt the SWFA glass is any better as it is not the HD glass they use in the 5-20, but can't say for sure as I have not looked through the 3-15, plus it is about $150 more than the others, probably due to it being FFP. I do however have a Razor HD 5-20 and a SWFA HD 5-20 and to my eye the razor has a little better glass. I am a Vortex fan and the HS-T in 4-16 is what I am putting on my long range hunting rifle in 284 Win that I am currently building. I don't have experience with the exact Zeiss that the op is talking about, but the Conquest line of scopes does have good glass for the money. I think you would be happy either way you go, probably more features with the Vortex and probably a little better glass with the Zeiss.
I have the Vortex Viper PST 6-24 FFP on a 308 and viper 1-4 on an AR. Both are very clear, positive clicks, and have a great warranty. I'm real happy with my vortex. The 270 no doubt will make most scopes appear better than they are. Good luck with what ever you pick!
I've got two HST 4-16x...they aren't HDMRs but they are very nice for the money. Shot them to 1100, haven't felt underscoped.
Not sure how it compares optically with the FFP SWFA 3-15x or a Zeiss.